"All this region is very level and full of forests, vines and butternut trees. No Christian has ever visited this land and we had all the misery of the world trying to paddle the river upstream." Samuel de Champlain

Accusations are flying over the latest University of California, Berkeley study on the effects of a widely-used weed killer on amphibian sexuality.

The study was conducted by Tyrone Hayes, a professor of Integrative Biology, and found that feeding atrazine to tadpoles reshaped their sexuality as they grew to adults. Ten percent of the 80 males he tested for the study had become anatomically female and capable of mating with other males, while three-fourths of the remainder were sterile, The San Francisco Chronicle reported last week.

Farmers spray atrazine on half of all corn grown in America, according to Syngenta, the major manufacturer of the herbicide. In August, a New York Times investigation found that, in recent years, there have been unusual spikes in the atrazine content of drinking water and reported that 43 water systems in six states — Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Ohio — have sued atrazine’s manufacturers to force them to pay for removing the chemical from drinking water.

Earlier this month, The Huffington Post reported that 16 midwestern cities near agricultural fields have already banded together to file a new federal lawsuit against Syngenta for failing to alert them of atrazine’s presence in their drinking water at unsafe levels.

Tyrone Hayes: "What we believe is happening in the frogs is that atrazine causes a decline in testosterone and an increase in estrogen. The biggest concern is that atrazine turns on aromatase, which is the machinery for producing estrogen. The big issues there are reproductive cancers, prostate cancer and breast cancer. Atrazine is associated with increased prostate and breast cancer in humans.

This paper that we published is — to give you a teaser — nothing. It’s the tip of the iceberg. These are the first two papers of a dozen papers that are long-term looking in incredible depth and detail at the long-term effects of atrazine. We’re looking at homosexuality in frogs, we’re looking at breast cancer, we’re looking at endocrine mechanisms across vertebrates, from fish all the way up to humans."

By the way, some of our best scientific people who specialize in aquatic life believe that atrazine is probably the main culprit of the reproduction problems of the Copper redhorse, endangered species of the Richelieu and about to disappear from the face of the planet.

Un journaliste chroniqueur reconnu dit à peu près la même chose mais en mieux dans la publication Le Réseau d'Information municipale ici: http://www.rimq.qc.ca/entrevue.asp?ID=46750~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Many towns in the province of Quebec are rethinking the fluoridation of drinking water in some towns. I guess the province subsidies cities who agree to add the stuff to their water system. But Quebecers, like a lot of Europeans, don't like the idea. I've never discussed this before in this blog and here's why I'm against the idea.

1- Fluorine's action on cavities is topical. So what's the use in forcing us to drink it, flush it down the toilet, cover our bodies with it when we have a shower or when we wash our clothes? If we want to prevent cavities, all we have to do is brush our teeth with the mostly main, cheap brands of toothpaste that already contain the stuff.

2- The fluoridation of drinking water is mass medication: it goes against my principles of free choice.

3- Knowing that the fluorine added to drinking water is industrial waste is very disgusting to me.

4- Our body needs some fluorine in our diet, but a balanced meal and variety in the menu will take care of our needs.

5- Ever since most countries in Europe use fluorinated toothpaste, their cavity statistics are very similar to the American cities that fluoridate their drinking water.

6- Water treatment plants and filtration plants don't remove the fluorine already in the water. Since most of our drinking water comes from surface water, the fluorine coming from people upstream brushing their teeth and using mouthwash should be enough, thank you very much!

This makes me realize how our climate shapes our rivers: ice-jams, the thaw and freeze action on rock, the drastic water level changes during spring thaw, all see to it that rocks move, trees keel over and are dragged long distances, and sandbars get transported from one bend to the next every year. A riverboat friend living along the Altamaha gave us a high-speed boat ride a few years back, and her fearlessness made me realize that her river in Georgia changed much more slowly, being much less subjected to weather extremes than our rivers up in Quebec: so she knew exactly where the driftwood and sandbars where as the river stayed very much the same from one year to the next, unlike ours!

Published in recognition of World Water Day, a video called The Story of Bottled Water (at right, on top), made its debut on YouTube this week, using animation and snappy narration to convey what its makers consider to be the evils of bottled water. (It comes from the same folks who produced ”The Story of Stuff” — an eco-themed viral video sensation from last year.)

Not missing a beat, the International Bottled Water Association, declared the new video to be sensational, and quickly posted its own minifilm, highlighting the sustainability practices of its members, which include major brands like Nestlé.

“The Story of Bottled Water,” in a nutshell, accuses bottled water companies of scaring consumers by saying that tap water is dirty and contaminated, while they themselves simply bottle tap water. “Pepsi’s Aquafina and Coke’s Dasani are two of the many brands that are really filtered tap water,” the star of the video, Annie Leonard, says. She goes on to say that 80 percent of plastic bottles end up in landfills or are burned in incinerators.

But the International Bottled Water Association, using different statistics, says that water bottles are the nation’s most recycled plastic container, with a 30.9 percent recycling rate. “Consumers are really quite thoughtful in selecting and enjoying a safe, healthy, convenient, calorie-free beverage that’s delicious, refreshing and a very smart drink choice,” said Tom Lauria, the association’s vice president of communications in a press release. “That’s the real story of bottled water.” The association says that bottled water is a necessity — particularly in emergencies like floods, tsunamis and earthquakes. “Lifesaving bottled water cannot be available in times of pressing need without a viable, functioning industry to produce it,” the association wrote.

But the United Nations, in a report released on Tuesday, emphasized that bottled water was not sustainable. The report that found producing bottled water for the United States market consumed 17 million barrels of oil annually.

As of Wednesday afternoon, Ms. Leonard’s video had been viewed more than 120,000 times. The I.B.W.A.’s had received about 250 visitors."

A federal lawsuit filed yesterday seeks to stop the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware from allowing farmers to plant genetically engineered crops at the major waterfowl sanctuary. The groups that filed the suit contend that the use of such crops on refuges is a national problem. As many as 80 others, including the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, also have allowed genetically-engineered crops, they said. The groups, which include Delaware Audubon Society and the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, said the crops can harm wildlife, in part by killing beneficial insects.

The crops also foster the use of herbicides, which may be toxic to amphibians and other wildlife and hasten the development of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," the groups said.Although widely used in commercial agriculture, the use of genetically engineered crops in refuges "goes against the purpose for which the refuges were created," said Christine Erickson, a lawyer for a third plaintiff in the suit, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national alliance of public-resource professionals. The groups said planting the crops violates the service's own policies, which forbid them in refuges without a determination that they are essential.

Bombay Hook is a 16,000-acre expanse of mostly tidal marshes that provide valuable habitat to many species of waterfowl. It also attracts bird-watchers from throughout the mid-Atlantic and beyond. Its importance "has increased greatly over the years, primarily due to the loss of extensive surrounding marshland to urban and industrial development," the refuge's Web site says. The suit contends that for several decades, the refuge has leased acres on the property to farmers. In 2009, slightly more than 800 acres were leased, and genetically-modified corn and soybeans were planted. The crops also can alter soil ecology and contaminate non-genetically-engineered plants, the suit said.

In Delaware, a weed known as "mares tail" has developed resistance from the use of Roundup Ready on soybeans and corn, the suit contends. It noted that the federal agency itself has identified the potential risks of genetically engineered crops to include "gene flow, nontarget effects, pest resistance, and increased use of certain pesticides."

The groups picked the Bombay Hook refuge for their action because in 2009, they won a similar suit against the nearby Prime Hook refuge, now administratively incorporated into Bombay Hook. In that case, federal Judge Gregory Sleet found that the agency allowed the crops in spite of "their own biologists' findings that these activities posed several significant risks to Prime Hook." He said it was "undisputed that farming with genetically modified crops at Prime Hook poses significant environmental risks."

In August, several groups wrote to Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar, asking for a moratorium on the practice, but said they did not receive an answer. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware by the Widener Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic. Paige Tomaselli, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, said farmers have complained that, because of consolidation of the seed industry, it has harder to find seed that has not been genetically modified. Basically, four companies own more than 40 percent of the seeds in the world, Tomaselli said. She said that the crops all but guarantee the use of herbicides, to which wildlife is then exposed.

Mark Martell, president of the Delaware Audubon Society, said farming no longer serves any purpose on the refuge. Planting crops on refuges, he said, stems from a fear that there might not be enough food sources for wildlife there. Current studies show there are ample food resources for wildlife in the Delaware refuges, yet "cozy relationships" between the farmers that sold land to form the refuge and the refuge itself have continued, he said. Because of modern "clean" farming techniques, "they don't leave food plots for wildlife," Martell said. "They simply treat these government lands as part of their farms, managing these plots for personal profit, not for providing any economic or wildlife value to the species that use the refuge."

While the infrastructure may look beautiful to the burgeoning gas industry, advocates and some landowners find the vision blossoming in Broome County less than attractive. A point of dissatisfaction, so far, involves a proposal by Laser Midstream, of Houston, for a 30-mile pipeline connecting well fields in Susquehanna County, Pa., to the Millennium Pipeline - a main artery running through Broome County that serves major markets in the Northeast.

The project would include a compressor station on 20 acres of unspecified Windsor property near the Millennium junction, with three 1,380-horsepower compressors, equipment to purify gas and tanks to collect waste.The clean-burning gas that comes out of your stove or furnace is different from the gas that typically comes from a well. According to Anne Dalton, a spokeswoman for the state Public Service Commission, natural gas picks up impurities with water as it flows from core formations. During drilling and hydraulic fracturing, it mixes with brine, solvents and other stuff that has to be removed before being market-ready.

Drilling rigs are a temporary source of exhaust, although, he added, “it's not as temporary as it once was.” Tapping the Marcellus requires more rigs on a single pad that drill for longer periods. ”What once took months may take years,” he said.Once the drills are gone, the compressors remain.

Switzer has an ally in Dish, Texas, a small town at the hub of compressors, pipelines and wells producing gas from the Barnett Shale, which is similar to the Marcellus. Calvin Tillman, the mayor of Dish, recently toured Dimock with Switzer and compared notes. He also spoke to hundreds of people throughout the region, including more than 500 in Binghamton, warning that energy companies are good at exploiting regulatory loopholes and creating excessive levels of air pollution in the process. He describes the compressors and treatment equipment that sprang up in Dish as a noxious and unsightly collection of valves, tanks and machinery.

As the state DEC reviews the environmental effects and permitting process to allow Marcellus production in New York, Broome County Executive Barbara Fiala has recommended baseline testing at all production phases to gauge impact from air emissions. The DEC has already proposed water testing.

The potential for noise pollution from the massive compressors is also an issue, said Broome County Attorney Joseph Sluzar. The county is seeking clarification on how and who would handle ordinances. Ordinances and regulations are only as good as their enforcement, however, and critics point out that the DEC and the Public Service Commission lack manpower to oversee 2,000 to 4,000 wells in Broome County that, according to a county economic development report, could come with Marcellus production over the next decade."

Amid its massive studies, technical jargon and propensity to take an interminably long time making decisions, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has offered a refreshing moment of clarity. And it came in connection with perhaps the most important cleanup it has ever overseen: General Electric's removal of miles of PCB contamination in the Hudson River. Crews hired by GE have finished a first, modest phase of the cleanup, and the company and the EPA are now taking a break to evaluate the results before a much larger-scale cleanup begins.

To that end, EPA project director Dave King adds: "Regardless of the decision GE makes about moving forward, EPA is committed to seeing this project is completed," as reported in the Times Union of Albany.This is precisely what the public needs to hear from the EPA, which can't afford to send mixed messages about a project so important to the river. Remarkably, it's been almost 35 years — more than one-third of a century — since the government finally banned GE and other companies from using polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, as coolants and insulating fluid for transformers and other equipment. That's because PCBs were polluting the environment, and studies have shown they are harmful to the survival and growth of fish, birds and mammals.

Before the ban, GE released the contamination into the Hudson River from manufacturing plants at Hudson Falls and Fort Edward. These plants discharged wastewater containing PCBs, which is why parts of the river north of Albany have the most pollution.

Nevertheless, PCBs have made their way downstream. Each year, they have been pouring over the Troy dam, and traces have been found in drinking water as far south as Poughkeepsie, though at levels well within safety standards.EPA studies have shown dredging is a better cleanup option than burying the sediments or using caps to stop their spread. Still, the first phase didn't go exactly as planned. While GE says the dredging stirred up too much PCBs downriver and is questioning the effectiveness of this approach, the EPA counters that the initial phase has shown there are many more PCBs in the river than predicted, bolstering the argument for broader dredging.

Under the federal Superfund law, the EPA has the authority — not to mention the obligation — to make sure this work gets done and will have to assert that authority in court if necessary. That broader cleanup is expected to expand along a 45-mile stretch of river north of Albany and could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The two sides have issued extensive reports on the initial phase and what to do next, and — as has been the case before during this saga — a panel of independent experts will review them and is expected to make recommendations by June. More details and insights will emerge about exactly how to proceed. But the EPA's stated commitment to go forward with a broader cleanup must not waver."

What is the best way to slow the flow of phosphorous pollution into Lake Champlain? Should we help a farmer plant a row of trees to prevent erosion? Or should we upgrade sewage treatment plants?

The answer is both.

But it's not easy to pay for both, and so Gov. James Douglas, through his Clear and Clean program, has emphasized control of non-point pollution — such as fertilizer flowing off of farmers' fields.

Non-point pollution accounts for a huge percentage of the flow of phosphorous into the lake, and the Douglas administration has spent close to $100 million over seven years to promote changes that keep fertilizer from finding its way into the lake. In consequence, the condition of the lake has mostly stayed the same. It hasn't improved, but it hasn't gotten significantly worse.

But then Montpelier received a permit for its wastewater plant, allowing the city to triple the release of phosphorous into the Winooski River, and the Conservation Law Foundation sued. The Douglas administration argued that containing the overall level of phosphorous in the lake is what mattered and that because the level had been contained, the increase from one individual source could be allowed.

That case is now before the Vermont Supreme Court. At stake is whether wastewater plants throughout the state will be forced to curb phosphorous, a step that cities such as Rutland oppose because of the cost.

Now the Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering whether it will continue to approve of the Douglas administration approach. If the EPA decides that Douglas' focus on non-point pollution is not doing enough to clean up the lake, cities and towns in Vermont could face the prospect of upgrades at their sewage treatment plants.

Douglas argues that spending a lot of money on sewage treatment plants would divert money and effort away from the larger and more complex job of agricultural and stormwater runoff. He has a point.

If cost were not an object, it is clear that both kinds of pollution ought to be addressed immediately. Deterioration of water quality in Lake Champlain would have serious adverse economic effects on the state. Environmental protection is not a job that ever ends, and it appears that our wastewater treatment system, like our roads, bridges and other infrastructure, now presents us with a major public works challenge. Pollution control is not something that you do once, and then it's finished. It must be carried out continually with vigilance, or else our great natural resources, our rivers and lakes, will turn into algae-plagued messes.

Douglas's focus on Lake Champlain has been welcome, and his familiarity with the agricultural sector has helped his administration introduce important improvements in the fight against non-point pollution. But we can't say we are serious about cleaning up Lake Champlain until we take steps that actually improve the lake. Saddling our cities and towns with major new costs would be difficult, especially now. Eventually, the federal government's new emphasis on public works expenditures must take into account the need for pollution controls at our aging wastewater treatment plants."

We in the Richelieu Valley missed out on the 400th of Champlain. While the whole province, Vermont and New York celebrated, the summer of 2009 fizzled out in a whimper here. Seems the subsidies people didn't like our plans. But some folks still want to trace a route all along the Richelieu River, and even stretch it down along the Hudson.

But for the moment, 25 towns and 260 kilometers have been singled out for the first stage of this long term project that wants to preserve and highlight the Richelieu, organize the tourist facilities and promote the history of this natural feature of our province. The first step seems to be to put up signs that will tell the history of the most historical sites.

But we are not talking about billions of $ here: for the past 15 years, the participating towns have promised to spend between $500 to $3,000 over a few years period! Since the launching of the project has not been made official yet, everyone involved is touchy about giving out details. There may be a press conference this summer.

I can't be against this, but the people involved in this project must realize that if the river is to play a lead role here, work has to be done to make it cleaner, and fast! They know what needs to be done. A small stream, the Bernard, has been selected to show off the good results of the bank plantings, the filtration green strip along farmland protecting the stream from erosion, pollution and the plow. What is a pilot project has to become the norm, the imposed norm for everybody!

When we attract tourists along a river, we have to be ready for those who will want to swim and practice water sports during the mild weather! That means we should know about how clean it is (or not): taking of samples, having them tested, and finding out about the horrible coliform counts after rainfall. We have to be responsible about this if we are to deliberately attract people to the river. Let's get to work, friends!

The ecologist Vandana Shiva lists nine water democracy principles:1- it's nature's gift;2- it's essential to life;3- "life is interconnected through water;"4- it must be free "for sustenance needs;"5- it's limited and exhaustible;6- it must be conserved;7- it's a commons;8- "no one has a right to overuse, abuse, waste, pollute," or own it; it belongs to everyone; it can't be treated as a commodity; and9- there's no substitute.

Corporate profiteers have other ideas and, since 1997, have met triennially at the World Water Forum (WWF) to discuss privatizing water globally in coordination with the World Water Council (WWC). It's dominated by two of the world's largest water companies, Suez and Veolia, as well as the World Bank, other financial interests, UN bodies, and powerful interest groups representing business and world nations.

WWC's agenda is profits through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) wanting to privatize global water resources, sell them to the highest bidder, promote destructive dam and water diversion projects, extort high prices, and make an element of life available only to those who can afford it. Their scheme involves controlling city/municipal/community distribution as well as stealing public water, bottling it, selling it at exorbitant prices, and claiming it's pure when, in fact, it's no safer than tap water.

The People's Water Forum (WWF) advocates for global water justice, calling it a "basic element of all life (and) a fundamental and inalienable human right." It rejects all forms of privatization, demanding water be "public, social, cooperative, participatory, equitable, and not for profit." It calls for "the democratic and sustainable management of ecosystems and the preservation of the water cycle through the protection and proper management of watersheds and environment." It says commodifying water harms the world's poor, and wants privatized utilities reclaimed for equitable public use.

Up to now, no shortages exist, but overuse, pollution, and waste will create them. Water is limited, exhaustible when poorly managed, and there's no substitute. Irrigation consumes the most because agribusiness uses ten times what comparable ecological farming needs. Much of what's available is lost through pollution, overuse, and waste. Conservation and keeping it out of corporate hands is vital to human health, well-being, and sustainability.

Cities belatedly learn that public control delivers better, cheaper, faster, more reliable service and happier customers. Food & Water Watch concluded that: Privatization is not a sustainable model or a way to rejuvenate community water systems. "From high costs and inefficiency to unaccountable and irresponsible operators, a deluge of problems has swamped communities that turned to the private sector. Corporations prioritize earnings over quality, and stockholders over consumers. They seek good returns by cutting corners, neglecting maintenance and hiking rates."

Privatization is the problem, not the solution to protect our valuable water resources and distribute them equitably to everyone at a reasonable cost. "Public money for public utilities is the best way....to ensure clean, safe and affordable water for generations to come." It also preserves higher paying jobs and the right of workers to organize. Irresponsible profiteers operate otherwise.

Social activist Maude Barlow chairs the Council of Canadians, Canada's largest citizens organization advocating for numerous economic and social issues, including Canadian independence, progressive policies, energy security, and publicly controlled clean water. In a July 2007 article titled, "The Militarization and Annexation of North America," this writer discussed one way - by integrating America, Canada and Mexico through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), or North American Union. Launched in March 2005, it's for greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social, and security integration with secretive working groups devising binding agreements legislatures can't change. If achieved, it will militarily enforce a corporate coup d'etat against the sovereignty of three nations, their people and legislative bodies, the idea being a US-controlled North America with no trade or capital flow barriers. Especially key will be America's unlimited access to Canadian and Mexican resources, mainly oil from both countries and Canadian water.

Organizations like the Council of Canadians, the Blue Planet Project (founded by Barlow), Food & Water Watch and others are fighting back to preserve water as a right, keep it out of corporate hands, and stop countries like Canada from agreeing to bulk exports to America when preserving enough for domestic needs is vital. Although Canada is water rich, it must conserve its surplus quantities, given its own growing needs. But plans are being made to divert them.

But as Maude Barlow wrote in her book "Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water:" The "global justice movement is demanding a change in international law to settle once and for all the question of who controls water. It must be commonly understood that water is not a commercial good....but rather a human right and a public trust." Binding law is needed to codify it to obligate all nations "to deliver sufficient, safe, accessible and affordable water to their citizens as a public service." Corporate control must be prevented, and global water justice efforts must take the lead.

Canadian attorney John Carten runs the web site waterwarcrimes.com, covering the plan to highjack Canadian water, involving powerful insiders trying to make billions of dollars through bulk water exports, some entirely illegal. A feature article headlines: "The Politicians Plan to Steal Canada's Water Resource Wealth," explaines that Canada has abundant water, especially in Quebec in the East, and British Columbia (BC) in the West. The temptation to profiteer is overwhelming. The way chosen is by monopoly control, "the investors behind the bulk water export business hatch(ing) a bold and devious two step plan:Obtain a source of abundant water for export from the British Columbia Government.Use the environmental movement and the public media in Canada to (ensure that) policy makers in the Governments of Canada and British Columbia" ban competition.

Targeted was "the joint venture project of two small companies, one American, Sun Belt Water Inc. based in Santa Barbara, California, and one Canadian, Snowcap Waters Ltd. based in Fanny Bay, BC and the small Vancouver based company, Aquasource Ltd." About 85% of the water would go to agribusiness that already consumes more than its share, causing growing shortages for others. NAWAPA doesn't explain, but its scheme involves privatizing a public resource, using it wastefully, and exploiting it at a cost far more than what governments would charge. It also about stealing Alaskan and Canadian water, aided by corrupted politicians, the way giant businesses always operate in America, Canada and most elsewhere when governments go along the old fashioned way - bought and paid for through political bribes.

This could reassure me but the feeling that our governments at all levels are also corrupted and write laws and policies to suit corporate needs. Like industrialized farming, the preservation of farmland, the clean-up of our rivers, the protection of endangered species, the preservation of natural spaces, etc...

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — More than a year after a Tennessee coal ash spill created one of the worst environmental disasters of its kind in U.S. history, the problem is seeping into several other states. It began Dec. 22, 2008, when a retaining pond burst at a coal-burning power plant, spilling 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash across 300 acres into the Emory River and an upscale shoreline community near Knoxville. It was enough ash to cover a square mile five feet deep.

While the Tennessee Valley Authority's cleanup has removed much of the ash from the river, the arsenic- and mercury-laced muck or its watery discharge has been moving by rail and truck through three states to at least six different sites. Some of it may end up as far away as Louisiana.

At every stop along the route, new environmental concerns pop up. The coal-ash muck is laden with heavy metals linked to cancer, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering declaring coal ash hazardous. "I'm really concerned about my health," said retiree James Gibbs, 53, who lives near a west-central Alabama landfill that is taking the ash. "I want to plant a garden. I'm concerned about it getting in the soil." Gibbs said that since last summer there has been a "bad odor, like a natural gas odor."

After the spill, the TVA started sending as many as 17,000 rail carloads of ash almost 350 miles south to the landfill in Uniontown, Ala. At least 160 rail shipments have gone out from the cleanup site, said TVA spokeswoman Barbara Martocci. Since the EPA approved that plan, unusually heavy rain — including about 25 inches from November through February — has forced the landfill to deal with up to 100,000 gallons a day of tainted water. The landfill operators first sent it to wastewater treatment plants — a common way that landfills deal with excess liquid — in two nearby Alabama cities, Marion and Demopolis.

After what the EPA calls unrelated problems with ammonia in Marion, the landfill in January started using a commercial wastewater treatment plant in Mobile, Ala., 500 miles from the original spill. A month ago, however, after a public outcry about discharging it into Mobile Bay, that company refused to take more of the landfill water. A private treatment facility in Cartersville, Ga., also briefly took some of the befouled liquid in February, although Georgia environmental officials said Friday the company did not have a required state permit. Hi-Tech Water Treatment Services stopped accepting wastewater from the Alabama landfill, manager Amalia Cox said, after becoming "concerned about payments and the publicity."

In a landfill management plan presented to Alabama environmental officials, tanker trucks could haul the dirty water to a non-hazardous waste disposal site in Louisiana and to a public wastewater plant in Mississippi. The plan also says there are "negotiations underway" on taking it to an unspecified facility in Georgia.

Neither the TVA, the companies hired to take the ash, nor environmental regulators want to discuss the disposal problems. TVA's coal ash cleanup manager, Steve McCracken, and agency spokeswoman Martocci referred disposal questions to Knoxville, Tenn.-based contractor Phillips & Jordan. So did the owners of the 977-acre landfill, Perry-Uniontown Ventures and Perry County Associates. Phillips & Jordan, which operates the Alabama landfill with a subsidiary, Phill-Con Services, has a $95 million disposal contract with TVA. The operators, who are in a financial dispute with the landfill owners, referred questions about the ash water to a Nashville public relations firm, McNeely, Pigott and Fox.

In a statement issued through the PR firm, Phill-Con Services president Eddie Dorsett said the landfill had received about 1.4 million tons of TVA's coal ash with another 1.6 million tons projected for delivery. Dorsett declined to answer questions about where the ash water is being taken for treatment or any problems it may have caused elsewhere. In a letter to Alabama environmental officials, the landfill operators said they are trying to reduce the excess wastewater, partly by using lime and soil to solidify it. They also said TVA is making new efforts to "minimize moisture in the ash waste or to better bind up the moisture in the ash waste." TVA's McCracken said he was unaware of any new effort to further dry the dredged ash. "We are not planning to do anything different," McCracken said.

Federal and state environmental regulators have been only minimally involved with disposal of the landfill wastewater. Even though coal ash contains toxic materials, it isn't considered hazardous waste. EPA officials late last year delayed a decision whether to propose reclassifying coal ash as hazardous. Doing so would limit where it could be sent for disposal, possibly increasing the projected $1.2 billion cleanup cost for TVA ratepayers and affecting the ability to recycle the ash into cement and building materials.

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management, which is paid $1 for each ton of the coal ash, monitors the landfill and has found no rules violations involving its excess water, spokesman Scott Hughes said. He said there are no restrictions on where the landfill sends the drained water, even to other states, as long as recipients have proper permits to treat it. In Demopolis, about 20 miles from Uniontown, officials failed to renew their wastewater treatment operating permit but the wastewater plant has continued receiving the landfill's drained fluids while operating under a special state order.

Hughes said Thursday that new orders propose additional monitoring of the wastewater at the landfill and allow Demopolis to accept it. If arsenic and other pollutant concentration levels meet standards, he said, there is no limit to how much landfill wastewater that Demopolis can take. He said Demopolis is the only treatment plant in Alabama currently taking the landfill wastewater. An attorney for the Demopolis wastewater system, Woodford "Woody" Dinning Jr., said the shipments are being tested on arrival.

David Ludder, Tallahassee, Fla.-based environmental attorney who represents Gibbs and other neighbors, said, "ADEM recovers a good bit of money off that coal ash. They get a fee for every ton of ash that gets disposed of there. EPA has a vested interest because they have to get the spill cleaned up in Tennessee and they can't do it without a place to put the ash."

Nous avons des fonctionnaires et des scientifiques qui travaillent pour la province et le pays, salaire et recherches payés par les payeurs de taxes et impôts, mais le bon peuple ne peut pas savoir ce qu'ils font ou ce qu'ils découvrent parce que nos journalistes ne peuvent pas leur parler librement. Pas pire, comme démocratie!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Every day now newspapers and the media give us examples of the lack of circulation of information between the public, the journalists and the civil servants and scientific researchers working for our governments. It's a university student that proved that it was high time the city of Beauport built its sewage treatment plant: the city was putting so much chlorine in its water that it was making the taxpayers sick! They had to take showers with open windows and let tap water stand in the fridge before drinking it!

Without these students publishing their research as part of their degree work, we the public could hardly know what is really going on. It seems the scientific people working for the province of Quebec have a as hard time getting their message out as the ones working for the Harper government. Some democracy we live in!

From the economy, to the environment, to power, Vermont and the state's largest trading partner Quebec are teaming up to make some big changes, including cleaning up Lake Champlain. It was a rare sight, the Vermont state flag flying over Quebec's Parliament building last week, a symbol outside of the partnership between the two regions that was continued inside, with the signing of an agreement to clean up Lake Champlain.

Reporter Kristin Carlson: "Where do you think Vermont and the quality of Lake Champlain would be if there wasn't this agreement?" "I don't think we'd have anywhere near the level of activity we have now," said Vermont Natural Resources Secretary Jonathan Wood. He says the cooperation has led to research and it sets a tone, that all sides want to reduce phosphorus pollution, coming from developments and farms, creating algae blooms. "This is a long term process, and without this agreement of understanding and without all of our work together we're not going to get there," said Wood.

But Lake Champlain is not getting cleaner, despite $100 million being spent in the past six years.

"The time for feel good agreements have passed and really what we need are actions," said Anthony Iarrapino with the Conservation Law Foundation. Iarrapino says the state needs to step up enforcement on sewage treatment plants, farms, and developments. The Environmental Protection Agency is now reviewing pollution goals for the Lake, after CLF won a lawsuit, seeking tougher standards. "So it's an across the board focus on all the pollution sources and moving away from the more education outreach voluntary and more toward the idea that the polluter pays," said Iarrapino.

When asked if the Douglas Administration plans to change its approach with the Lake, or stay the course, Secretary Wood responded, "I think the course we've been on is the right course."

The Lake Champlain agreement also includes New York. Governor Paterson could not be in Quebec City for the official signing, but it's been sent to his office for him to sign. The three regions have been renewing the Lake agreement for over two decades."

A group representing oilsands and other resource companies says it has convinced the Alberta government to change a plan that would force corporations to spend big money to restore wetlands ruined by mining projects. Conservationists say if the statement by the Alberta Chamber of Resources is true, it would make a mockery of the province's promise to develop the oilsands in an environmentally responsible manner."The province has agreed to three of the four changes to the proposed wetlands policy that (the chamber) suggested in a letter of non-consensus we delivered to the Ministry of Environment," says a report posted on the chamber's website. "While the wetlands policy has not yet been implemented, these changes may save literally billions of dollars for our members in the future."

Alberta currently has no policy to protect or restore wetlands that are ruined by resource development in the northern half of the province, including the wetlands-rich oilsands region. After years of study, the Alberta Water Council submitted a report to the province saying that vacuum could no longer continue. The council said wetlands are vital to migrating ducks and waterfowl, songbirds, caribou and the overall environmental health of the Athabasca River basin.

The report, submitted 18 months ago, called for a "no-net-loss" policy for wetlands. It recommended that companies that destroy such areas should be required to either restore them, bolster a nearby depleted wetland or build a new one somewhere else in the province. The government was supposed to have rolled out the policy last spring.

But two organizations in the 25-member water council opposed the recommendation for mandatory action - the Alberta Chamber of Resources and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Together they wrote dissenting letters in 2008 asking the province to making wetlands restoration discretionary. In its letter, the chamber also said it opposed the concept of "no-net-loss" and suggested the government delay taking action. It also recommended the province not include any existing oilsands projects in any wetlands policy. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in its letter said the cost of such a policy "could exceed billions of dollars."

Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner says the province hasn't made a final decision. He wouldn't commit to an announcement this year even though the policy is already at least one year overdue. Renner said balancing the need to protect the environment without thwarting resource development is so complex it will take more time for the plan to wind its way through the government before anything is approved. "It is a misrepresentation to say that Alberta Environment has agreed (to change the proposed policy). We accept arguments that some have made. We take those arguments and we try and maintain that balance," he said. "At the end of the day, there needs to be a clear policy that says that there are consequences that have to be acknowledged and have to be dealt with when wetlands are destroyed."

But some members of the water council say they are worried the industry's lobbying efforts have won over a government eager to appease Alberta's slumping resource sector. "We are very much concerned that it has been significantly undermined," said Carolyn Campbell of the Alberta Wilderness Association. "We are worried that by caving in to one sector's request, we would weaken our wetland policy across the province."

Other members of the council share those concerns. They're also unhappy over the delay of a policy that has been in the works for four years. "We are hoping it won't be watered down, but we are getting some signals from industry. The Alberta Chamber of Resources is claiming victory over the policy," said Pat Kehoe, manager of conservation programs for Ducks Unlimited. "Any change that would lessen the imperative of the policy or weaken the application of the policy would be of great concern to us. We have huge wetland resources in this province, but we also have had huge wetlands impacts. We need wetlands protected and restored."

Brad Anderson, executive director of the resources chamber, says its position on wetlands was posted on the group's website last year to update members and may now be out of date - even though it remains posted. "We don't know where the government is going with this wetlands policy or when it is going to come out," he said."

As a bonus, Alberta announced March 12th that royalties would be dropped: "Yesterday, virtually all of Mr. Stelmach's original royalty blueprints were thrown out the window. Top royalty rates for conventional oil were stripped back from 50% to 40%; conventional gas maximums from 50% back to 36%, within spitting distance of where they were when Ralph Klein was premier. Generous up-front royalty incentives for drilling once meant as Band-Aids were fixed as permanent. It was virtually everything critics had been demanding, sealed with a kiss." Excerpts of article written by Kevin Libin from the National Post:http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=2673063&sponsor=

I'm the second generation of my family that lives in Richelieu, Quebec, in Canada. My family tree, both from my mother's and my father's side, has its roots in Quebec since the beginning of the 1600s: my ancestors crossed the ocean from France, leaving Perche and Normandy behind them. Both French AND English are my mother tongues: I learned to talk in both languages when I was a baby, and both my parents were perfectly bilingual too.